Chimpanzee brain morphometry utilizing standardized MRI preprocessing and macroanatomical annotations

  1. Sam Vickery  Is a corresponding author
  2. William D Hopkins
  3. Chet C Sherwood
  4. Steven J Schapiro
  5. Robert D Latzman
  6. Svenja Caspers
  7. Christian Gaser
  8. Simon B Eickhoff
  9. Robert Dahnke  Is a corresponding author
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter  Is a corresponding author
  1. Research Centre Jülich, Germany
  2. MD Anderson Center, United States
  3. The George Washington University, United States
  4. Georgia State University, United States
  5. University of Jena, Germany
  6. Jena University Hospital, Germany

Abstract

Chimpanzees are among the closest living relatives to humans and, as such, provide a crucial comparative model for investigating primate brain evolution. In recent years, human brain mapping has strongly benefited from enhanced computational models and image processing pipelines that could also improve data analyses in animals by using species-specific templates. In this study, we use structural MRI data from the National Chimpanzee Brain Resource (NCBR) to develop the chimpanzee brain reference template Juna.Chimp for spatial registration and the macro-anatomical brain parcellation Davi130 for standardized whole-brain analysis. Additionally, we introduce a ready-to-use image processing pipeline built upon the CAT12 toolbox in SPM12, implementing a standard human image preprocessing framework in chimpanzees. Applying this approach to data from 194 subjects, we find strong evidence for human-like age-related gray matter atrophy in multiple regions of the chimpanzee brain, as well as, a general rightward asymmetry in brain regions.

Data availability

The T1-weighted MRI's can are available at the National Chimpanzee Brain Resource Website as well as the direct-to-download dataset we used for our example workflow.The code used in the manuscript can be found at this GitHub repo https://github.com/viko18/JunaChimp

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sam Vickery

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    For correspondence
    s.vickery@fz-juelich.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6732-7014
  2. William D Hopkins

    MD Anderson Center, Bastrop, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chet C Sherwood

    Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6711-449X
  4. Steven J Schapiro

    MD Anderson Center, Bastrop, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Robert D Latzman

    Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1175-8090
  6. Svenja Caspers

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christian Gaser

    University of Jena, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Simon B Eickhoff

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6363-2759
  9. Robert Dahnke

    Department of Neurolgy; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
    For correspondence
    robert.dahnke@uni-jena.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    For correspondence
    f.hoffstaedter@fz-juelich.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7163-3110

Funding

Helmholtz Association (Helmholtz Portfolio Theme 'Supercomputing and Modelling for the Human Brain)

  • Sam Vickery
  • Simon B Eickhoff
  • Felix Hoffstaedter

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (417649423)

  • Robert Dahnke

European Commission Horizon 2020 (945539 (HBP SGA 3))

  • Sam Vickery
  • Simon B Eickhoff
  • Felix Hoffstaedter

Helmholtz Association (Initiative and Networking Fund)

  • Svenja Caspers

European Commission Horizon 2020 (785907 (HBP SGA 2))

  • Svenja Caspers

National Institutes of Health (NS-42867,NS-73134,NS-92988)

  • William D Hopkins

National Institutes of Health (NS092988)

  • Chet C Sherwood

James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020293)

  • Chet C Sherwood

Inspire Foundation (SMA-1542848)

  • Chet C Sherwood

National Institutes of Health (U42-OD011197)

  • Steven J Schapiro

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jonathan Erik Peelle, Washington University in St. Louis, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The chimpanzee imaging data were acquired under protocols approved by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC) at Emory University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Approval number YER2001206).

Version history

  1. Received: June 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 20, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 8, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Vickery et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,811
    Page views
  • 201
    Downloads
  • 16
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sam Vickery
  2. William D Hopkins
  3. Chet C Sherwood
  4. Steven J Schapiro
  5. Robert D Latzman
  6. Svenja Caspers
  7. Christian Gaser
  8. Simon B Eickhoff
  9. Robert Dahnke
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter
(2020)
Chimpanzee brain morphometry utilizing standardized MRI preprocessing and macroanatomical annotations
eLife 9:e60136.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60136

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60136

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.